Process Capability Ratio Limits for Tolerance Analysis Sung Ho Chang Gary D. Herrin Department of Industrial & Operations Engineering University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2117 February 1991 Technical Report 91-1ABSTRACT In this paper we develop a method for analyzing manufacturing processes and tolerances, This method is based on the study of the process capability ratio (Cp). To compensate for the uncertainty of the estimated process capability ratio, we find the upper and lower limits with a certain confidence level depending on the purpose of the process capability ratio. These limits can be used for general process and tolerance analysis problems,1, Introduction Confirmation of geometrical dimensions and tolerances is made more challenging by the smaller size and greater complexity of parts. In addition, conventional measuring instruments are not suited to these size and complexity challenges. Therefore, a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) is widely used to accomplish this task. Generally, the output of a CMM indicates confirmation as well as the effectiveness of conventional process control. However, the conventional process control procedure has a problem which does not take account the uncertainty of the parameter estimation. The conventional process control procedures are control charts and process capability analysis. In this paper, we discuss process capability analysis. Control charts are the simplest type of statistical process control procedure. A control chart is a device principally used for the study and control of repetitive processes, Dr. Walter A. Shewhart, its originator, suggests that the control chart may serve, first, to define the goal or standard for a process that management might strive to attain; second, it may be used as an instrument for attaining that goal; and, third, it may serve as a means of judging whether the goal has been reached. Process capability analysis can be defined as the quantification of process variability, as the analysis of this variability relative to product specifications, and as an aid in eliminating or greatly reducing this variability in development and manufacturing. A process capability study usually measures the functional parameters of a product (product characterization), not the process itself (true process capability analysis). However, a true process capability analysis includes observing the manufacturing process and controlling or monitoring the data collection activities. Controlling data collection and knowing the time sequence of the collection allows inferences to be made about the stability of the process over time and allows inferences about the adequacy of the specifications. A true process capability analysis can be contrasted with a product characterization. A product characterization oceurs when we have only sample units of a product available and, as a result, there is no directobservation of the process and no time history of production. In a product characterization study we can only estimate product quality and production yield (fraction confirming to specifications); we can say nothing about the dynamic behavior of the process or its state of statistical control (Montgomery [1985)). When we measure only one dimension of a product such as length, weight, and diameter, it is difficult to describe the dynamic behavior of the process even though we measure 100% of the products. One dimension cannot describe the dynamic behavior of the production process because a product is usually manufactured by various machining processes However, we can describe the dynamic behavior of the process when we measure two or three dimensions such as geometric tolerances. Because the geometric tolerances are the description of the surface characteristics of the part, they can contain the information of the manufacturing process behavior. The confirmation of geometrical tolerancing of manufactured parts is usually achieved using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM). The confirmation of geometrical tolerancing requires serial sampling points of a manufactured part. When several parts are measured, these points contain the time sequence of the process. This sequence data can be used for the analysis of the stability of the process and to determine the adequacy of the given specification. In other words, if the process is stable and if the analysis shows that the product is out of tolerance, the given tolerance may be too tight. However, if the process is stable and if the analysis shows that the product is in specification but deviations are lower than the specification, the given tolerance may be too loose. When we inspect the sampled parts over time, the accumulated data can be used for product characterization. Product characterization in geometrical tolerancing can be the analysis of process performance. Process capability indices are used to perform process capability analysis (Sullivan (1984, 1985], Kane [1986], and Montgomery [1985]). We can evaluate the process capability exactly and compare this value with the recommended minimum value, when the upper and lower specifications and the real process standard deviation are given, However, if we estimatethe process standard deviation from a sample size n, then we can evaluate the estimated process capability. Estimated process capability is a random variable because the estimated standard deviation is a random variable. Therefore, we cannot directly compare the estimated process capability with the minimum recommended value of process capability. The minimum recommended values of the process capability ratio are given in Montgomery [1985] and shown in Table 1. Two sided|One sided Specification | Specification Existing Process 1.33 1.25 New Process 1.50 145 Safety, strength or critical parameter (existing process) 1.50 145 Safety, strength or critical parameter (new process) 1.67 1.60 Table 1 Recommended Minimum Values of the Process Capability Ratio It is necessary to determine the lower and upper limits of the estimated process capability because the estimated process capability is a random variable. This determination leads to two possible conclusions: either the process is capable with a certain confidence or, because of a certain amount of standard deviation increment, it is not capable with a certain confidence. There could be several factors which account for this increment such as tool wear and clamp breakage. Among various process capability indices, we deal with process capability ratio (Cp). 2, Limits on Cp When the upper (U) and lower (L) specifications are given, a conventional measure of process capability is Cp. The process capability ratio (PCR) is defined asBecause we usually do not know the true standard deviation (6), the estimated standard deviation (s) is used to calculate PCR. Because the estimated standard deviation is a random variable, estimated PCR (Gp) is also a random variable. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the limits of Cp with the recommended minimum values of Cp or vice versa. The limits are either one-sided limits or two-sided limits, One-sided refers to the confirmation of process performance and two-sided refers to both the process performance and tolerance analysis. The proposed definitions of form errors in previous paper (Chang et al. [1990]) related to the estimation of 6s. Therefore, these values can be used for process capability analysis. When we estimate form error serially, this value contains information about the time sequence of the manufacturing process. It can be used to monitor the dynamic behavior of the process. When we accumulate estimated form errors over time, these values can be used to monitor the process but, also, to analyze tolerance design. 2.1 One Sided Lower Limits on Cp A When Cy is given, we can find Cp, which is lower limit of Cp with a ¢ Type I error of y by the hypothesis test. Since 72 = 5 , we know that (n- Op peee follows a chi-square distribution with (n-1) degrees of freedom Pp denoted by 72.n.1. Then Ho (Null Hypothesis): 0% < of Hi, (Alternative): o> where of = unknown variance 6 = true variancePr(Type I error) = Prireject Hy | Ho is true) (n-1) of Coo 9 = Ply net) = Pr (OD) E> Bat) 0 Pp 3 & =Prlot> iy Bal = Pr C2> nal ay - A Therefore, the lower limit of Cy, when Cp is given, for determining the process capability with a Type I error of 7, is a 4 | Oan-1) Cy,= Cp YBa aw We can determine that the process is capable with a Type I error of y when * the recommended value of Cy is at least Cpy. We estimate Cp from the measured process by taking a random sample of size n, However, since the minimum recommended values of Cp are usually given for various process 5 conditions [Montgomery (1985)], we can find the required minimum of Cp with a Type I error of y by representing Eq.(1) in terms of Cpr, A Co Cu] Ga This result is same as the 100(1-)% lower confidence limit on Cy which is derived by Chou, Owen, and Borrego [1990]. Table 2 shows the lower limits of Cp with 95% confidence that the process is capable.1.0 | 293 | 237 | 209 | 191 | 180 | 171 | 164 | 137 | 128 | 123 1.1 | 322 | 261 | 229 | 210 | 198 | 198 | 181 | 151 | 141 | 136 12 | 351 | 285 | 250 | 230 | 216 | 205 | 197 | 164 | 154 | 148 18 | 381 | 309 | 271 | 249 | 233 | 223 | 214 | 178 | 166 | 160 14 | 410 | 332 | 292 | 268 | 251 | 240 | 230 | 192 | 179 | 1.72 15 | 439 | 356 | 313 | 287 | 269 | 257 | 247 | 2.06 | 192 | 185 1.6 | 468 | 380 | 334 | 3.06 | 287 | 274 | 263 | 219 | 205 | 197 1.7 | 498 | 404 | 354 | 3.25 | 305 | 291 | 279 | 233 | 218 | 2.09 18 | 527 | 427 | 375 | 344] 323 | 3.08 | 296 | 247 | 230 | 222 19 | 556 | 451 | 396 | 363 | 341 | 325 | 3.12 | 260 | 243 | 2.34 20 | 586 | 475 | 417 | 383 | 359 | 342 | 329 | 2.74 | 256 | 2.46 A Table 2 Lower Limits of Cp with 95% confidence of process being capablen |» | @ | m7 |» | » | 10 | 2 | x0 | 40 | 50 L@ | 1.0 | 120] 138 | 116 | 115 | 134 | 113 | 109 | 1.07 | 106 } 1.06 1a | 132] 130 | 128 | 127 | 126 | 125 | 120 | 148 | 117 | 1.16 12 | 144 | 142 | 140 | 198 | 137 | 136 | 131 | 129 | 127 | 127 1.3 | 156 | 153 | 151 | 150 | 148 | 147 | 142 | 139 | 1.38 | ‘137 1.4 | 168 | 165 | 163 | 161 | 160 | 159 | 153 | 150 | 149 | 1.48 15 | 180] 177 | 175 | 173 | 171 | 170 | 164 | 161 | 159 | 158 1.6 | 192 | 189 | 186 | 184} 183 | 181 | 174 | 1.72 | 1.70 | 169 1.7 | 204 | 201 | 198 | 196 | 194 | 193 | 185 | 182 | 181 | 179 18 | 216 | 212 | 210 | 207 | 206 | 204 | 196 | 193 | 191 | 190 1.9 | 228 | 224 | 221 | 219 | 217 | 215 | 207 | 2.04 | 202 | 2.00 20 | 240 | 236 | 2.33 | 230 | 228 | 227 | 218 | 215 | 212 | 211 Table 2 Continued22 One Sided Upper Limits on Cy When Cp is less than the lower limit derived from given Cp by Ea.(2), we claim that the process is not capable with a Type I error of 7, The variance increment can be detected by Cp if the cause of the variance increment shows the process is out-of-control. When we have enough information about the causes of the out-of-control state or variance increment, we can detect those causes from Cp. A When Cy is given, we can find Cpy which is upper limit of C, with a Type Il error of B by the hypothesis test. Ho (Null Hypothesis): 0 sk? 03 Hy (Alternative): of > k2 of where of = unknown variance 6 = true variance k = variance increment factor Pr(Type II error) = Prifail to reject Hy | Ho is false} a) Woe ~ 1G = Pri na) =Prl 1) ea” 2.06, we can claim that the process is capable with 95% confidence. 3) If 187 Cp < 2.06, we can claim that the process is not capable. It may be due to an increase in the standard deviation of up to 10% with 5% of Type II error. 4) If1.71 Cp < 187, we can claim that the process is not capable. It may be due to an increase in the standard deviation of more than 10% and up to 20% with 5% of Type II error. 5) If 1.58 Cpr, 2) The process standard deviation is shifted by more than As, and less than Asp. when Cpy(As)) < Gp < Cyy(Asy). 3) The given specification is not appropriate when Gp>Cyry or Cp Cyny then, the given specification (tolerance) is too loose. If Cy < Cyr, then, the given specification is too tight. B‘The limits of the process capability ratio can be used for general process capability analysis and, also, for geometrical tolerance analysis problems. Acknowledgement Thanks to Prof. Lam for devoting her time to read and give technical comments for this paper.References Chang, S. H., G. Herrin and S. M. Wu [1990], "Sample Size Planning and Estimation of Form Errors using a Coordinate Measuring Machine", Department of Industrial & Operations Engineering Technical Report 90-35, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Chou, Y. M., D. B. Owen and S. Borrego [1990], "Lower Confidence Limits ‘on Process Capability Indices’, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 223-229. Duncan, J. D. [1986], Quality Control and Industrial Statistics, 5th Ed. Trwin, Homewood, Ill. Kane, V. E. [1986], "Process Capability Indices", Journal of Quality ‘Technology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 41-52. Montgomery, D. C. [1985], Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Sullivan, L. P. [1984], "Reducing Variability: A New Approach to Quality", Quality Progress’, 17, pp. 15-21. Sullivan, L, P. [1985], "Letters", Quality Progress , 18, pp. 7-8.it = | il =e i ve ti